Mohanlal @ Monty vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7461 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:30823]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 465/2023

Mohanlal @ Monty S/o Sh. Anandlal, Aged About 32 Years, Roopnagar, Kacchi Basti, At Present Near Devdungri Bavji, Payda P.s. Pratapngar, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Satyaprakash S/o Madanlal Mundra, 80 Ganeshnagar University Road, Udaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 550/2023 Raju S/o Sh. Prathviraj, Aged About 36 Years, Vill. Goraji-Ja- Nimbahera, P.s. Kapasan, Dist. Chittorgarh (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Satya Prakash S/o Sh. Madan Lal Mundra, 80, Ganesh Nagar, University Road, Udaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gopal Singh Bhati Mr. S.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

20/09/2023

1. Notice was issued to the complainant/victim and has been

served upon him but no one has appeared on his behalf.

[2023:RJ-JD:30823] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-465/2023]

2. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of

filing an appeal under Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellants. The

requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.                                Particulars of the Case
     1.      FIR Number                                     600/2021
     2.      Concerned Police Station                       Pratapnagar
     3.      District                                       Udaipur
     4.      Offences alleged in the FIR                    Sections 302, 201 of IPC
     5.      Offences added, if any                         Sections 201/34 of IPC and
                                                            under Sections 3(2)(v)(va)
                                                            of SC/ST Act.
     6.      Date of passing          of impugned 07.09.2022
             order  (Criminal         Appeal  No.
             465/2023)
     7.      Date of passing          of impugned 20.04.2023
             order  (Criminal         Appeal  No.
             550/2023)

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellants that no

case for the alleged offences is made out against them and

their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at

play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail

to the accused-appellants and they have been made an

accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

appellant, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and

submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of

accused on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public

Prosecutor.

[2023:RJ-JD:30823] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-465/2023]

6. Admittedly, the eye-witness account of the incident is not

available on record and the case of the prosecution wholly

and mainly hinges upon circumstantial evidence. The

circumstances put forth against the petitioners are the

evidence of last seen of the deceased in the company of the

petitioners and recovery of blood smeared clothes. The

witnesses projected by the prosecution to depose before the

Court regarding the last seen have not supported the story

of the prosecution and that emanating from the perusal of

the statement of P.W.-7 Rajesh Dahima and P.W. 8

Shankarlal. The witness of the recovery memo have also

turned hostile. The incident took place on 26.08.2021 and

the memos were prepared on 30.08.2021, thus, the

submission that recovery of belongings of the petitioners do

not connect them with the alleged crime, seems to be worth

considerable. The principle of circumstantial evidence is that

the circumstances pitted against the accused must form a

chain so complete and it should be like a spider's web

leaving no room to sleep or to exit and all the circumstances

should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.

Reliance can be placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the case of Hanumant Govind

Nargundkar & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR

1952 SC 343). Thus, there is no reasonable ground to allow

further incarceration of the appellants. They are directed to

release on bail. It is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of

bail to the appellants in the present matter.

[2023:RJ-JD:30823] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-465/2023]

7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned

orders dated 07.09.2022 and 20.04.2023 passed by the

learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Udaipur are set aside. It is

ordered that the accused-appellants - Mohanlal @ Monty S/o

Sh. Anandlal and Raju S/o Sh. Prathviraj arrested in

connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if

not wanted in any other case, provided they furnish a

personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each of them and one surety

of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all

dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

(FARJAND ALI),J 234-235 divya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)